Common use of Regulatory Analyses Clause in Contracts

Regulatory Analyses. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as ‘‘economically significant’’ regulations); (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order. This regulatory action is an economically significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Treasury has also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, section 1(b) of Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency: (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) Select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or providing information that enables the public to make choices. Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ‘‘to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.’’ OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has emphasized that these techniques may include ‘‘identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.’’ Treasury has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action, and is issuing this interim final rule only on a reasoned determination that the benefits exceed the costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, Treasury selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows and the reasons stated elsewhere in this document, Treasury believes that this interim final rule is consistent with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13563. Treasury also has determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with States, territories, Tribal governments, and localities in the exercise of their governmental functions. This Regulatory Impact Analysis discusses the need for regulatory action, the potential benefits, and the potential costs.

Regulatory Analyses. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as ‘‘economically significant’’ regulations); (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order. This regulatory action is an economically significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Treasury has also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, section 1(b) of Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency: (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) Select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or providing information that enables the public to make choices. Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ‘‘to use the best available 26816 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 93 / Monday, May 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.’’ OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has emphasized that these techniques may include ‘‘identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.’’ Treasury has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action, and is issuing this interim final rule only on a reasoned determination that the benefits exceed the costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, Treasury selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows and the reasons stated elsewhere in this document, Treasury believes that this interim final rule is consistent with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13563. Treasury also has determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with States, territories, Tribal governments, and localities in the exercise of their governmental functions. This Regulatory Impact Analysis discusses the need for regulatory action, the potential benefits, and the potential costs.

Regulatory Analyses. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as ‘‘economically significant’’ regulations); (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order. This regulatory action is an economically significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Treasury has also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, section 1(b) of Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency: (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) Select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or providing information that enables the public to make choices. Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ‘‘to use the best available 26816 Federal Register / ▇▇▇. ▇▇, ▇▇. ▇▇ / Monday, May 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.’’ OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has emphasized that these techniques may include ‘‘identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.’’ Treasury has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action, and is issuing this interim final rule only on a reasoned determination that the benefits exceed the costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, Treasury selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows and the reasons stated elsewhere in this document, Treasury believes that this interim final rule is consistent with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13563. Treasury also has determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with States, territories, Tribal governments, and localities in the exercise of their governmental functions. This Regulatory Impact Analysis discusses the need for regulatory action, the potential benefits, and the potential costs.